On Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 5:35 PM Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 at 04:31, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > This fixes a crash in ACPICA while attempting to evaluate a control > > method that expects more arguments than are being passed to it, which > > was exposed by a defective firmware update from a prominent OEM on > > multiple systems. > > Christ. Reading the ACPI issues page makes me go "D'oh". > > Does anybody know what the heck Windows does in this situation? Does > it just happen to work because it uses random arguments and happily > dereferences bogus things without realizing, or does it do the "zero > out missing arguments" thing? Saket said: "I didn't run into this same bug on Windows though and the interpreter just aborted out with a different error message saying that this method already exists elsewhere. Maybe Windows thinks that when RUCC is called with 2 args instead of 3, it is perhaps referring to a different method with the same name, but warns that this name already exists (AE_ALREADY_EXISTS)." > Because clearly that firmware bug must have passed entirely unnoticed > by people testing that thing on Windows... Well, given the above, I'm wondering how it has been tested on Windows. It looks like somebody set a really low bar for the verification of it. Cheers, Rafael
